Admittedly that part of the world was small potatoes compared to the sights of Greece, Turkey and Egypt but all the Romans stationed there? They'd have visited any site that was recommended and taken their visitors to it.

Think about what you to when friends and family visit from far away.

I always pack them in the car and take them out to see Grandma's grave. It's great fun, and, hey, I make a couple bucks. Everyone's a winner.

You charge your friends and family to take them around?

I take them to a local historical state park (it charges plus souveniers), a lake (it charges for drinks and souveniers) and downtown to see all the historical places (some ask for donations and there are always souveniers to be had - a couple charge). One is a very old church and cemetery that has recently been restored (the cemetery that is). Plus see the place that is supposedly haunted, everyone wants to see that.

If there was a place where someone came back to life, no doubt a few would ask to see it.

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius

But to get back to the topic,does it seem plausible that a Christian for whom the resurrection was a contemporay event would not visit the tomb and remember its location?It seems a natural human reaction to an amazing life-changing miracle.

People might have visited the tomb. It's plausible that they would be interested in seeing the site if they lived nearby.

But to expect that they would take the time to build something around it, like the church of the Holy Sepulcher, or that Luke would give directions to it when writing Acts, is just not rational.

Why not? Have you been to Greece, the Middle East, Italy, France? Way back even then, everyone and his brother was quick to turn any site where something miraculous happened into a tourist attraction. If you could make a buck, it was valuable. That sucker would be walled off in a heartbeat and protected so that *someone* could charge people for a look and sell true pieces of the tomb for souveniers. They - the people in that era - were not so different from people today.

What other sites by devout Jews, from the 1st century and before, were made into tourist attractions?

The Wailing Wall?

A tourist attraction in the 1st century? People making a buck to visit it?

I imagine there were sites that Jews would have visited at that time simply because Jerusalem has long had such a special place in Jewish history and theology.

Admittedly that part of the world was small potatoes compared to the sights of Greece, Turkey and Egypt but all the Romans stationed there? They'd have visited any site that was recommended and taken their visitors to it.

Think about what you to when friends and family visit from far away.

I always pack them in the car and take them out to see Grandma's grave. It's great fun, and, hey, I make a couple bucks. Everyone's a winner.

LOL!!!

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

I think Johnny may actually have something of a point that people of one religious tradition ought not interpret another's religion or texts for them. That is a job for those within the particular faith tradition. However, many of us who offer interpretations Johnny disagrees with actually are within a Christian community and faith tradition. For instance me. I am a Catholic. But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them. That's because they theoretically suppress their own sectarian religious beliefs in order to find the meaning of the text. Note I use the word "theoretically." While followers do well to learn from such scholarship and incorporate it into religious practice, neither theology nor scholarship are spirituality or a lived faith. Each believer and community/faith tradition must grapple with what it means in this day and age to follow Jesus.

I agree each person much grapple with the meaning of religious tradition.Since Christianity claims a basis in factual history,one way of gappling with it is to examine its historical claims.

Yes, I agree there is value to the search for what is historical and what isn't. That is one reason many Christians see the Resurrection as non-historical. It is a myth to explain the subjective experiences of the Jesus People that Jesus was still present in the Community of faith and especially in the breaking of the bread, ie whatever form the Eucharist took in those early days. Literal resuscitation of corpses don't happen but finding meaning in Jesus' life, one's own, and the Community's does happen.

But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them.

Jesus taught that his authority was over all people. Nobody is "impartial" when it comes to understanding Scripture. In fact, it is those would want to dismiss its claims (especially that we are sinners under God's judgment) that would be most impartial, by far.

I respectfully disagree. There ought to be a certain striving for impartiality at least. We all have biases and they condition our interpretations but this doesn't mean we can't do our best to apply a reasonable hermeneutics. As I was trying to point out we do well when we apply both faith and reason to our texts. Theology is different from prayer, and scholarship is different from both theology and prayer. Multiple narratives, multiple modes of interpretation.

I respectfully disagree. There ought to be a certain striving for impartiality at least. We all have biases and they condition our interpretations but this doesn't mean we can't do our best to apply a reasonable hermeneutics. As I was trying to point out we do well when we apply both faith and reason to our texts. Theology is different from prayer, and scholarship is different from both theology and prayer. Multiple narratives, multiple modes of interpretation.

I agree with you, BB. How could I ever "not like" what I'm reading, if it wasn't because I know that I'm getting ready to have a new take on the situation. And there are times "I don't like" what I'm reading. However I can't remember the last time this happened. But it has happened.

If the new understanding comes from the Bible it usually improves my understanding anyway and is welcomed. (I don't want to be unfair.)

Of course you and I are bound to accept the teaching of the Church, or keep our mouths shut.

I was saying that bias can be suppressed or defeated in oneself. And to the charge that I am biased, I say there ARE times I don't "like" what I'm coming to understand, but the reason I don't "like" it, is because I know that the text is going to win and my bias is not.

If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.